FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RADEL

GALLARDE, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of

Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 51, finding accused-appellant Radel
Gallarde1 (hereafter GALLARDE) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. T-1978 and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of  reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs
of Editha Talan (hereafter EDITHA) the amount of P70,000 as actual
damages.2 cräläwvirtualibräry

On 24 June 1997, GALLARDE was charged with the special complex

crime of rape with homicide in an information whose accusatory
portion reads as follows:

That on or about the 6th day of May 1997, in the evening, amidst
the field located at Brgy. Trenchera, [M]unicipality of Tayug,
[P]rovince of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, and by means of
force, violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one EDITHA
TALAN, a minor-10 years of age, against her will and consent, and
thereafter, with intent to kill, cover the nose and mouth of the said
minor resulting to her death and then bury her in the field, to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of said EDITHA TALAN.3 cräläwvirtualibräry

During the arraignment on 1 September 1997, GALLARDE, with the

assistance of counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.4 Trial of the case
immediately ensued as the defense waived the holding of the pre-
trial conference.
The witnesses presented by the prosecution were Mario Fernandez,
Jaime Cabinta, Rosy Clemente, Felicisimo Mendoza, Alfredo Cortez,
Renato Fernandez, SPO4 Oscar B. Lopez, and Dr. Perfecto Tebangin.
The relevant and material facts established by their testimonies are
faithfully summarized in the Appellees Brief as follows:

In the evening of May 26, 1997, at the house of spouses Eduardo

and Elena Talan in Brgy. Trenchea, Tayug, Pangasinan, their
neighbors converged. Among them were appellant Radel Gallarde,
Francisco, Renato, Edwin, all surnamed Fernandez, Romel
Hernandez, Jaime Cabinta, Rosy Clemente, Jon Talen, Noel Arellaga
and Ramil Bargon. Idling by was Editha, 10 year old daughter of
spouses Talan. A fluorescent lamp illuminated them as they partook
beer (TSN dated October 13, 1997, pp. 3-4).

After a while, Roger stood up and invited Jaime and appellant to

dine in the kitchen. As they partook of the meal, appellant suddenly
left. Jaime, too, stepped out of the kitchen to urinate. Outside the
house, he chanced upon appellant and Editha talking to each other.
Jaime whistled at appellant but instead of minding him, the latter
sprinted towards the road leading to his house (Id., pp. 4-6).

Thereafter, Editha entered the kitchen and took hold of a kerosene

lamp. Jaime followed her and asked where she was going. Editha
answered that she would look for appellant. Soon Editha left
enroute to where appellant fled (Id., pp. 7-8).

By 10:00 oclock that evening, the drinking buddies had dispersed

but Jaime, Francisco, Edwin and Rose regrouped at Renatos place
where they talked and relaxed. Moments later, Roger arrived and
informed them that Editha was missing. Roger asked the group to
help look for her (Id., p. 10).

Elena Talan informed his uncle, Barangay Ex-kagawad Mario

Fernandez, about her daughters disappearance. The latter, together
with his son Edwin, wife Virginia and nephew Freddie Cortez wasted
no time in joining their neighbors search the houses, dikes and
fields to look for the missing child. The searchers used a lighted
rubber tire (TSN dated Sept. 24, 1997, pp. 8-10 and 24).
When Jaime mentioned that appellant was the last person he saw
talking to Editha, the searchers went back to the house of appellant.
About 7 meters away from appellants house, one of the searchers,
Alfredo Cortez, found Edithas left foot slipper (TSN dated October
22, 1997, pp. 4-6). Suddenly, Edwin Fernandez announced: "Tata,
Radel is here!" pointing to the toilet about 6 meters away from
appellants house. The searchers found appellant squatting with his
short pants. His hands and knees were covered with soil. When
confronted by ex-kagawad Hernandez why he was there, appellant
answered he was relieving himself (Id., pp. 11-16).

Asked where Editha was, appellant replied: "I do not know, I did not
do anything to her." When told "according to Jimmy, you were with
Editha," appellant responded "I let her go and brought her back to
the dike and let her go home." To the next question, "where did you
come from since a while a go you were not yet in this toilet?"
appellant answered "I was with Kiko, I was asleep in their house.
One of the searchers Mario Bado, got angry and countered that
appellants statement was impossible because Kiko was with him
drinking (Id., pp. 16-20).

After the confrontation at the toilet, Ex-kagawad Fernandez brought

appellant to Brgy. Captain Felicisimo Mendoza, informing the latter
that appellant was the last person seen talking with the missing
child. Fernandez then rejoined the searchers (Id., pp. 21-22).

Back in the field, Virginia Fernandez tripped on a wet ground. As

she reached for her slipper, she saw Edithas right foot slipper (the
other one was earlier found near the house of appellant) (Id., pp.
23-24).

Around 3 meters farther from Edithas right foot slipper; another

slipper was found. It was old, 8 to 9 inches in length and appellant
was seen wearing it in the morning of that day (TSN dated Sept. 25,
1997, pp. 25).

The searchers, thereafter, noticed disheveled grasses. Along the

way, they saw a wide hole among the disheveled grass. Ex-kagawad
Fernandez accidentally dropped the lighted rubber tire and as his
nephew Freddie picked it up, the latter exclaimed: "Uncle, look at
this loose soil!" Ex-kagawad Fernandez forthwith scratched some
earth aside and then Edithas hand pitted out. The Fernandez
screamed in terror (Id., pp. 5-6).

Meantime, Barangay Captain Mendoza heard shouts saying: "She is

here, she is now here already dead!" Mindful of appellants safety,
Brgy. Captain Mendoza decided to bring appellant to the municipal
building. On their way though, they met policemen on board a
vehicle. He flagged them down and turned over the person of
appellant, saying: "Here is the suspect in the disappearance of the
little girl. Since you are already here, I am giving him to you" (TSN
dated Oct. 21, 1997, pp. 4-5).

The policemen together with appellant proceeded to where the

people found Editha. One of the policemen shoved more soil aside.
The lifeless Editha was completely naked when she was recovered.
(Id., pp. 9-10).

The cause of Edithas death as revealed in the post-mortem

examination showed "suffocation of the lungs as a result from
powerful covering of the nose and mouth, associated with laceration
of the vagina and raptured hymen (Exh. "T", TSN dated Oct. 23,
1997, pp. 22-23)."5cräläwvirtualibräry

On the other hand, GALLARDE was the lone witness for the defense.
He interposed a denial and the alibi that he was at home with his
mother and brothers at the time the crime occurred. He declared
that he is 18 years old, single, a former construction worker. He
knew EDITHA, a neighbor whom he considered as a sister because
she used to come to his house. They never had a quarrel or
misunderstanding. He neither raped not killed Editha.6 cräläwvirtualibräry

On cross-examination by the prosecutor and to questions

propounded by the court, GALLARDE admitted that he saw Editha
on the night of 6 May 1997 in her parents house, particularly in the
kitchen. He was there because he joined a group drinking Colt 45
beer, as he was called by Rudio Fernandez. He drank and had
dinner in the kitchen. After dinner he returned to the drinking place
and eventually went home because he was then a little drunk. He
knows Kgd. Mario Fernandez, but after he left the Talan residence
he did not see Kgd. Fernandez anymore. Kgd. Fernandez saw him
inside his (Gallardes) toilet on the night of May 6; thereafter
Fernandez took him to the barangay captain and later he was
turned over to the PNP at Camp Narciso Ramos. The police informed
him that he was a suspect in the rape and killing of Editha Talan,
and he told them that he did not commit the crime. At the Talan
residence he was wearing short pants and rubber slippers.
Fernandez asked him at the police headquarters to pull down his
shorts and he complied. He was then wearing briefs with a hemline
that was a little loose. He was informed that a cadaver was
recovered near his house. When he was asked questions while in
police custody, he was not represented by any lawyer.

GALLARDE further declared on cross-examination and on questions

by the court that he considered Editha Talan as a sister and her
parents also treated him in a friendly manner. When he came to
know that Edithas parents suspected him of the crime, he was still
on friendly terms with them. However, he did no go to them to tell
them he was innocent because they brandished a bolo in anger.

Finally, he testified that in the evening of May 6 he came to know

that Editha died. She was still alive when he was drinking at the
back of the Talan house and left for home. From the time he
arrived, he never left again that night, and his mother and brothers
knew it for a fact.7
cräläwvirtualibräry

On 12 February 1998, the trial court rendered a decision convicting

GALLARDE of the crime of murder only, not of the complex crime of
rape with homicide because of the lack of proof of carnal
knowledge. It observed:

Exh. "T" and Dr. Tebangins testimony thereon show that the late
Editha Talan sustained slit wounds inflicted as a means of
suffocating her to death, a laceration of the lower portion of her
vagina, and a ruptured hymen. What allegedly oozed from her
vagina was blood, coupled with dirt. Had there been observed the
presence of even just a drop of seminal fluid in or around her
vagina, the Court would readily conclude that the laceration and
rupture resulted from phallic intrusion. Without such observation,
however, "carnal knowledge" as element of rape would be an open
question.

The trial court did not appreciate the alternative circumstance of

intoxication either as a mitigating or aggravating circumstance
pursuant to Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code because
GALLARDEs alleged inebriation on the night of 6 May 1997, was not
satisfactorily proven.

As to the civil aspect of the case, the trial court considered the
stipulation of the parties on 27 October 1997 fixing a liquidated
amount of P70,000 as actual damages, and leaving the matter of
moral damages to the discretion of the court. The trial court was not
inclined to award moral damages because the "evidence before it
tends to disclose that on the night of 6 May 1997, before she died,
Editha was a much-neglected child."

Accordingly, in its decision8 of 12 February 1998, the trial court

decreed:

WHEREFORE, his guilt having been established beyond a reasonable

doubt, the Court hereby convicts the accused RADEL GALLARDE Y
HERMOSA of the crime of MURDER, and sentences him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the late
Editha Talan in the negotiated sum of P70,000.00.9 cräläwvirtualibräry

His motion for reconsideration,10 having been denied by the trial

court in its Resolution11 of 28 February 1998, GALLARDE seasonably
appealed to us.

We accepted the appeal on 9 September 1998.

In his Appellants Brief filed on 16 March 1999, GALLARDE alleges

that the trial court committed the following errors:

1....... In convicting [him] of the crime of murder in an information

for rape with homicide. X
2....... In concluding that the prosecution has proven beyond
reasonable doubt that [he] was responsible for the death of Editha
Talan.

3....... In not acquitting [him] on the ground of notches of proof

beyond reasonable doubt.12 cräläwvirtualibräry

We sustain GALLARDEs contention that the trial court erred in

convicting him of murder in an information charging him of rape
with homicide. A reading of the accusatory portion of the
information shows that there was no allegation of any qualifying
circumstance. Although it is true that the term "homicide" as used
in special complex crime of rape with homicide is to be understood
in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries
committed by reason or on the occasion of rape,13 it is settled in this
jurisdiction that where a complex crime is charged and the evidence
fails to support the charge as to one of the component offense, the
accused can be convicted of the other.14 In rape with homicide, in
order to be convicted of murder in case the evidence fails to support
the charge of rape, the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently
alleged and proved. Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of
the accused to be informed of the nature of the offense with which
he is charged.15 It is fundamental that every element of the offense
must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose
of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an
information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.
He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense.16
cräläwvirtualibräry

In the absence then in the information of an allegation of any

qualifying circumstance, GALLARDE cannot be convicted of murder.
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that with
which he is charged in the complaint or information under which he
is tried. It matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence
of guilt may be, but an accused cannot be convicted of any offense,
unless it is charged in the complaint or information for which he is
tried, or is necessarily included in that which is charged. He has a
right to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is
charged before he is put on trial. To convict an accused of a higher
offense than that charged in the complaint or information under
which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of that right.17x

Nevertheless, we agree with the trial court that the evidence for the
prosecution, although circumstantial, was sufficient to establish
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of GALLARDE for the death of
EDITHA.

Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix

wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of
guilt.18 The prosecution is not always tasked to present direct
evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction; the absence of direct
evidence does not necessarily absolve an accused from any criminal
liability.19 Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be
had on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the
established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads
one to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person, i.e., the
circumstances proved must be consistent with each other,
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the
same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of
guilty.20
cräläwvirtualibräry

The rules on evidence and precedents sustain the conviction of an

accused through circumstantial evidence, as long as the following
requisites are present: (1) there must be more than one
circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and
(3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction
beyond doubt of the guilt of the accused.21 cräläwvirtualibräry

The importance of circumstantial evidence is more apparent in the

prosecution of cases of rape with homicide. The nature of the crime
of rape, where it is usually only the victim and the rapist who are
present at the scene of the crime, makes prosecutions for the
complex crime of rape with homicide particularly difficult since the
victim can no longer testify against the perpetrator of the crime. In
these cases pieces of the evidence against the accused are usually
circumstantial.22 cräläwvirtualibräry
The circumstantial evidence in the case at bar, when analyzed and
taken together, leads to no other conclusion than that GALLARDE,
and no other else, killed EDITHA and that he is guilty therefor. We
quote with approval the lower courts enumeration of the
circumstantial evidence in this case:

1. Gallarde, 18, and Editha, 10, were neighbors and friends, even as
she used to frequent his place.

2. Both were at the Talan residence on the night of May 6, 1997

while neighbors indulged themselves in beer.

3. Among said neighbors Cabinta saw them hand in hand by the

toilet situated five (5) meters east of the Talan kitchen.

4. After Cabinta whistled he saw Gallarde run home towards north

after letting go of Edithas hands. Neighbor Clemente also noticed
that Gallarde disappeared, and that Editha returned to the kitchen.

5. Cabinta followed Editha back to the kitchen, and saw her holding
a kerosene lamp. She told him that she was going to look for
"Dalpac," and off she went in the same direction Gallarde took.

6. Gallarde wore short pants and rubber slippers at the drinking

place. Subsequently he was seen wearing shorts in his own toilet.

7. At past 10:00 in the evening during an intensive search for the

then missing Editha, her lifeless body was found in a shallow grave
situated some distance behind Gallardes residence.

8. Before Edithas body was discovered, a searcher found a girls

slipper (Exh. "B"), 5-6 inches long, among thickets seven meters
away from Gallardes house.

9. Another searcher saw a second slipper (Exh. "B-1"), of the same

color and size as the first one. Both slippers were Edithas, the
searchers recalled.
10. A third rubber slipper (Exh. "C") was thereafter found in the
field, near Exh. "B-1." It was an old slipper, 8-9 inches long and
with a hole at the rear end.

11. Soil stuck to each one of the three slippers.

12. Gallarde was not at home when searchers went to look for him
there, after Cabinta told them that Editha was last seen with
Gallarde.

13. When Gallarde was discovered squatting in the dark toilet

behind his house and beside the thickets, his shorts were up and
on. His hands and knees were soiled.

14....... At the toilet he was asked the innocent question of where

Editha was and he answered revealingly, thus: "I did not do
anything to her" and "I let her go and brought her back to the dike
and let her go home."

15. When asked where he had been, as the toilet was first seen
empty, Gallarde said he was with Kiko and he slept at the latters
house, which answer Mario Bado promptly refuted saying, "Vulva of
your mother Kiko was with me drinking." Bado and Kiko were not at
the place of the Talans that night.

16. Yanked out of the dark toilet near his own house, Gallarde
joined Kgd. Mario Fernandez sans protest.

17. Dr. Tebangin found on Edithas cheeks two slit wounds, each
being an inch away from her nostrils. Both wounds were fresh and
reddish.

...... From the lower portion of Edithas vagina blood oozed,

accompanied by dirt.

...... Her hymen was ruptured and was still bleeding.

...... The medico-legal concluded that there must have been a

forceful covering of Edithas nose and mouth because of the
presence of the slit wounds on both sides of her face, and that in 30
seconds unconsciousness and weakening resulted, with the vaginal
injuries contributing to her death.23
cräläwvirtualibräry

As to the crime of rape, there is much to be desired with respect to

the prosecutions evidence therefor, but not for the reason adduced
by the trial court, namely, the absence of spermatozoa in EDITHAs
private part and thereabout. It is well settled that the absence of
spermatozoa in or around the vagina does not negate the
commission of rape.24 Our doubt on the commission of rape is based
on the fact that there is at all no convincing proof that the laceration
of the vagina and the rupture of the hymen of EDITHA were caused
in the course of coitus or by a male organ. Our meticulous reading
of the testimony of Dr. Tebangin disclosed that he was never asked
if the laceration and the rupture could have been caused by the
penis of a human being. Needless to state, these could have been
caused by any object other than the penis of a person.

We cannot sustain the contention of GALLARDE that he was not

positively identified as the assailant since there was no eyewitness
to the actual commission of the crime. It does not follow that
although nobody saw GALLARDE in the act of killing EDITHA,
nobody can be said to have positively identified him. Positive
identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not per
se to that of being an eyewitness to the very act of commission of
the crime. There are two types of positive identification. A witness
may identity a suspect or accused in a criminal case as the
perpetrator of the crime as an eyewitness to the very act of the
commission of the crime. This constitutes direct evidence. There
may, however, be instances where, although a witness may not
have actually seen the very act of commission of a crime, he may
still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the
perpetrator of a crime as for instance when the latter is the person
or one of the persons last seen with the victim immediately before
and right after the commission of the crime. This is the second type
of positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial
evidence, which, when taken together with other pieces of evidence
constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable
conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of the crime to
the exclusion of all others. If the actual eyewitnesses are the only
ones allowed to possibly positively identify a suspect or accused to
the exclusion of others, then nobody can ever be convicted unless
there is an eyewitness, because it is basic and elementary that
there can be no conviction until and unless an accused is positively
identified. Such a proposition is absolutely absurd, because it is
settled that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the
only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and
finding of guilt.25 If resort to circumstantial evidence would not be
allowed to prove identity of the accused on the absence of direct
evidence, then felons would go free and the community would be
denied proper protection.

As discussed above, the circumstantial evidence as established by

the prosecution in this case and enumerated by the trial court
positively established the identity of GALLARDE, and no one else, as
the person who killed EDITHA.

We cannot agree with the trial courts rejection of the photographs

(Exhibits "I," "J" and "K") taken of GALLARDE immediately after the
incident on the ground that "the same were taken while
[GALLARDE] was already under the mercy of the police." The taking
of pictures of an accused even without the assistance of counsel,
being a purely mechanical act, is not a violation of his constitutional
right against self-incrimination.

The constitutional right of an accused against self-

incrimination26 proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to
extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his
body in evidence when it may be material. Purely mechanical acts
are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby
speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is
not required.27 The essence of the right against self-incrimination is
testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against
himself through a testimonial act.28 Hence, it has been held that a
woman charged with adultery may be compelled to submit to
physical examination to determine her pregnancy;29 and an accused
may be compelled to submit to physical examination and to have a
substance taken from his body for medical determination as to
whether he was suffering from gonorrhea which was contracted by
his victim;30 to expel morphine from his mouth;31 to have the outline
of his foot traced to determine its identity with bloody
footprints;32 and to be photographed or measured, or his garments
or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the
foregoing things to be done.33 cräläwvirtualibräry

There is also no merit in GALLARDEs argument that the failure of

the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the place and
time of the commission of the crime is fatal and will justify his
acquittal.

The place, time and date of the commission of the offense are not
essential elements of the crime of rape with homicide. The
gravamen of the offense is the carnal knowledge of a woman and
that on the occasion of or as a reason thereof, the crime of
homicide was committed. Conviction may be had on proof of the
commission of the crime provided it appears that the specific crime
charged was in fact committed prior to the date of the filing of the
complaint or information, within the period of the statute of
limitation, and within the jurisdiction of the court.34 cräläwvirtualibräry

The allegation of the place of commission of the crime in the

complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood
therefrom that the offense was committed or some of the essential
ingredients thereof occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of
the court.35 The rule merely requires that the information shows
that the crime was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of
the court. The Court may even take judicial notice that said place is
within its jurisdiction.36 cräläwvirtualibräry

As to the time of the commission of the crime, the phrase "on or

about" employed in the information does not require the
prosecution "to prove any precise date or time," but may prove any
date or time which is not so remote as to surprise and prejudice the
defendant."37chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Contrary to the claim of GALLARDE, the prosecution was able to

establish the proximate time of the commission of the crime, which
was sometime between 9:00 p.m., when GALLARDE left the house
of Talan followed by EDITHA, and 10:30 p.m., when the body of
EDITHA was found. This was further corroborated by the examining
physician who testified, on the basis of the degree of rigor mortis,
that EDITHA died more or less, at 10:00 p.m. of 6 May 1997.38 cräläwvirtualibräry

Likewise, GALLARDEs alibi and bare denial deserve no

consideration. He did not present witnesses who could confirm his
presence in his house. No member of his family corroborated him on
this matter. The defenses of denial and alibi, if unsubstantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving,
deserve no weight in law, and cannot be given evidentiary value
over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
matters.39jo

Moreover, even assuming that GALLARDEs claim is true, his stay in

his house did not preclude his physical presence at the locus
criminis or its immediate vicinity. The place where the body of
EDITHA was found buried was a few meters from his house, the
place pointed to in the alibi and can be reached in a short while. For
the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place
must be strictly met. It is not enough to prove that the accused was
somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must
demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been
at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.40 cräläwvirtualibräry

Besides, no evil motive has been established against the witnesses

for the prosecution that might prompt them to incriminate the
accused or falsely testify against him. It is settled that when there is
no showing that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were
actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that the witnesses
were not so actuated and their testimonies are thus entitled to full
faith and credit.41 Testimonies of witnesses who have no motive or
reason to falsify or perjure their testimonies should be given
credence.42cräläwvirtualibräry

With respect to GALLARDEs claim that he was arrested without

warrant, suffice it to say that any objection, defect, or irregularity
attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his
plea.43 The records show no objection was ever interposed prior to
arraignment and trial.44 GALLARDEs assertion that he was denied
due process by virtue of his alleged illegal arrest is negated by his
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, as
manifested by the voluntary and counsel-assisted plea he entered
during arraignment and by his active participation in the trial
thereafter.45 It is settled that any objection involving a warrant of
arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction
over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his
plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.46 It is much too late
in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid
information had been filed and the accused arraigned and trial
commenced and completed and a judgment of conviction rendered
against him.47 Verily, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient
cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient
complaint after trial free from error; such arrest does not negate
the validity of the conviction of the accused.48cräläwvirtualibräry

Homicide, which we find to be the only crime committed by

GALLARDE, is defined in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and
is punished with reclusion temporal. In the absence of any
modifying circumstance, it shall be imposed in its medium period.
GALLARDE is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law. Accordingly, he can be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty ranging from ten (10) years of the medium period of prision
mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of
the medium period of reclusion temporal as maximum.

As to the civil aspect of the case, the parties agreed on P70,000 as

liquidated damages. This should be construed as actual damages.
However, as indemnity for death, the additional sum of P50,000,
per current case law, should be awarded.

WHEREFORE , the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 51, Tayug, Pangasinan, in Criminal Case No. T-1978 finding
accused-appellant RADEL GALLARDE guilty of the crime of murder is
hereby modified. As modified, RADEL GALLARDE is hereby found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of
Homicide, defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and
is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from
ten (10) years of the medium period of of prision
mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of
the medium period of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay
the heirs of the victim, Editha Talan, the sum of P70,000 as
liquidated actual damages and P50,000 as indemnity for the death
of Editha Talan.

Costs against accused-appellant RADEL GALLARDE in both

instances.

SO ORDERED. DAVIDE, JR.J